The Open Carry Argument

This is a discussion on The Open Carry Argument within the Open Carry Discussion forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by FTG-05:250852
Originally Posted by GOV5
Have you quit taking your meds again? You seem to have a ...

Have you quit taking your meds again? You seem to have a argumentative character about you. My State requires CWP holders to inform the officer we are carrying. Unlike you, I don't have a problem with that. And unlike you, I don't think it is an affront to me rights. In my opinion, only some lower educated conspiracy theorist nuts would think informing is the "GOVT" trying to get one over on you. SHEESH! Give ME a break!!

A long long time ago I learned to stop digging when I find myself in a hole.

In your case, you need to stop cranking up the power shovel....

No offense.

Gov may have a base for his arguments but turned to insulting, ruining any argument he had. Not only is he digging with a power shovel, he is burying himself in the hole.

You seem to just want to argue and do the childish one-up thing, just like your buddy Navy LCDR, who I think needs to start taking his meds again.

Didn't realize I was acting "childish" or "one-up-ing" anybody DAD! As for taking meds....maybe you oughta try a "chill pill" there yourself Dr. Love? I thought we were having an adult conversation here? I'm not here to run anyone in the ditch, but I'm not gonna be run in it by anyone either. You can play nice, or be a d*ck if you want to. But sooner than later, no one is going to respond to anything you post if all your gonna do is attack them. I've seen a bit of "needling" goin on here, but it ain't any worse than some other forums I've been on? Calling someone childish, or telling someone they need to get back on their meds, is just pickin for a fight.

Now do we want to discuss OC, or trade name-calling back and forth like a bunch of elementary school girls?
I responded to your post as intelligently as I could, and without attacking you. I've read it over again, and I don't see where I attacked you in any way? If I'm not entitled to have an opinion on anything you post from now on, just let me know. I'm sure someone else will take up my slack though! Maybe some of the others were right about that username of yours? Some of your rhetoric is sure starting to sound familiar! No hard feelings here though...I'm here to share and learn Daddy-O.

As for our debate....this is what I originally said,

Yesterday 02:16 AM #370

ESD
U.S. ARMY VETERAN

Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Whites Landing, Ohio Posts: 28

Originally Posted by BC1

I often wondered how that works. When they run the plate before approaching the car does it pop up for the registration owner? Does he know before he approaches the car or does it pop when he runs the DL? What if the driver is not the registered owner?
MY RESPONSE TO BC1...
...Yeah, before he's even approached the stopped vehicle, he has run the plate. It will pop up automatically if the vehicle is registered to a CHP. He/she will know that there is already the possibility that there could be a firearm in the vehicle.
************************************************** ************************************************** *******
THEN THIS IS WHAT YOU POSTED...

I think they run the license AFTER they stop you, not before. They usually don't have time to run the plate while they are in pursuit of stopping a vehicle. That's the reason you see stories of officers getting in fights and sometimes shot at traffic stops. They don't know what they got until they run the drivers license. The plate doesn't link to the crime computer, the drivers license does. The plate just shows who owns the car.

If your DL says one thing, and the plated says another, expect some time in the back of the squad car. LOL!
************************************************** ************************************************** *******
AND YOU SAID "DUH" TO ME? MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE READ OUR CONVERSATION MORE CAREFULLY?
Neither BC1, nor myself said anything about having had a license ran before they stop someone? You did! And then you went on to say, "They usually don't have time to run the plate while they are in pursuit of stopping a vehicle." REALLY? sarcasm inserted here: I WOULD HAVE NEVER THOUGHT OF THIS? :)

Read BC1's post again...the car is already stopped in our conversation? We never said anything about running the DL "before" the car is stopped? We were talking about running the License plate before he approaches the stopped car? And in Ohio, I told you the License Plate is how they identify if the vehicle is registered to a CHL. Ohio calls their database "LEADS". BC1 is from NY. You, SC? I was explaining Ohio's procedure to him, because he inquired about it. Do you get it now? Because I think you just read it wrong? But it ain't worth getting bent over?

"Governments don't live together, people live together. With governments you don't always get a fair word or a fair fight. Well, I've come to give you either one. Or get either one from you." Josie Wales

GOV5 said in a previous reply....
"As for what I said about cops getting shot at traffic stops because they didn't know what they had until they ran the DL, you seem to be a bit confused. You said they get shot by criminals, not CWP holders. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even if you are a CWP holder, that doesn't mean you will not shoot the cop for something. CWP holders HAVE been known to commit crimes."

Well, once again Gov, I think it is YOU who is "confused"? You claim, I said, "they get shot by criminals, not CWP holders."

WRONG! I never said that? I made the following statement,...."The reason, I believe you see stories of officers getting in fights and sometimes shot at traffic stops, is because they are dealing with criminals, not law abiding citizens?" End quote.

I never said anything about CWP, or even if the law abiding citizen was armed, or not? But once again, you put words in my mouth that I DID NOT POST ON THIS FORUM?

If your having problems understanding what you THINK you're reading...try reading it again. If it don't make sense then; maybe you could ask what it means, before you go and edit everybody's replies with what you THINK you're understanding of it is? Because while you claim that I just want to argue and do the childish one-up thing, you are stepping all over your tongue with those big Ol' feet of yours!

"Governments don't live together, people live together. With governments you don't always get a fair word or a fair fight. Well, I've come to give you either one. Or get either one from you." Josie Wales

Look, you entire attitude, and NAVY, was argumentative. It wasn't a debate attitude, it was an argument, so don't try to changed that after the fact. I'll admit we got off on a tangent and started arguing about a subject that was different from the original thread topic, but that happens a lot in theses forums. But I recognize wise-ass when I see it, and you and NAVY demonstrated it in spades.

AS for name-calling, and the childish nature of it..NAVY and you both have claimed that my screen name signifies I am with the Govt, which you seem to have a BIG problem handling. Why is that? Are you afraid of something in your past?

If you want to debate, discuss, talk, exchange, express, or in any other manner, engage, I will be happy to accommodate you. I enjoy that. But when you start sniping at someone, BTW, who isn't in your "inner circle" here, expect some "return fire". That's what you got.

Now, do you want to play nice? If so, I'll return your respect. If not, I'll ignore you.

Sorry if I offended you from the get-go. If you continue to exchange with me, and I rile you again, stop me right there and challenge me on it, by asking why I did it, and explain what aggravated you. I may not have even known I had said anything to get you miffed.

Oh, BTW, I am not with the GOVT. And to let you know where I stand on the political totem pole, I am farther to the Right than Rush Limbaugh. I am actively involved with politics, and have emailed and spoken with my Congressional Representative's office about the Bill the U.S. House just passed concerning National Reciprocity. I expressed that I am 100% for it, and asked if he thought it would be brought up in the Senate. He didn't know, since Harry Reid had at least 20 other job and economic related bills on his desk that the House had passed, and Reid had not brought up ANY of them yet.

I told him I think will pass if it comes up next year, since being on the wrong side of a 2nd Amendment issue in an election year would be political suicide, IMHO. The 2nd Amendment, contrary to what you hear from the media, is NOT a Democrat vs. Republican issue. That bill passed the house by a 2:1 margin. I.E., there were a LOT of Democrats that voted for that bill. Heck, even Harry Reid got funds for a very nice shooting range in Nevada. So, this really isn't a partisan issue as much of the media would have you believe.
Oh sure, you'll see some of the Democrats, like Maxine Waters, and Sheila Jackson(I think that's her name ), and some Black Representatives(don't remember their names) from Georgia that opposed it in the House, raise cane about it, and use arguments against it that are outright lies, and have nothing to do with the bill. But aside from those Reps, that would be against ANYTHING the Right brings up, there will be little opposition.

I will also tell you that while I want to see the Bill passed, I don't favor the "spirit" of the Bill. Even one Georgia Representative said he opposed it, and he was pro-gun. His reason was that the 2nd Amendment already gave us the right to keep and bear arms. While I agree with him, I also think that you can cut off your nose to spite your face. Take what you can get in politics, and keep fighting for it to get better as you go along.

This issue was debated along the usual lines. You had the "National GOVT knows what's best" crowd vs. the "State's Rights" crowd. Well, it isn't up to the National Govt to decide whether or not we can carry. And it isn't up to the States either. It's already been decided, and put in the Constitution. What the House and Senate SHOULD have been debating is an action by the Joint Houses of Congress to petition the United States Supreme Court to BACK UP what is ALREADY IN the Constitution! I don't see how anyone could read that the 2md Amendment doesn't us that right. BTW, for any of the left wingers here, I AM part of the militia!

Yeah, I kinda get an attitude when people make comments trying to make me or someone I'm having a conversation with look like idiots. You obviously didn't read the conversation right, otherwise, you wouldn't have made the comments you made? To make the whole situation worse, you made comments like "DUH" and then call me a smart ass? Funny thing is, you made yourself look stupid when you thought you were telling us all something we already knew? Especially when you ended the sentence with "DUH".

To be quite honest with you, I would rather not debate anything with anybody on here. BC1 and I were sharing information with each other, and you thought you would "debate, or argue" a non-factor in our conversation? You didn't read our conversation correctly, and YOU made the first smart ass comment then. And I'm not beating anyone up for making an honest mistake. But you my friend, can't seem to see the error in it? And to make the whole situation worse, you ramble on misquoting me, therefore putting your own spin on misquoted information? Either read the comments moreover for a clearer understanding, or reply to comments you do understand.

I couldn't care less what your political view point is either? Hell, I'm at the point where I couldn't care less what your view point is on anything I discuss on this forum? Especially when you don't have the decency to admit you "could have" been mistaken in your comments. Everybody else read it for the way it was written, and didn't debate anything, because there wasn't anything to debate?

I called you out on your comments because they were wrong, and then YOU made the smart ass comments like "DUH" when you didn't even understand our conversation? And what inner circle would you be referring to? Navy and I have had our disagreements on an issue as well. But we debated the issue like men. Like men would have 200 years ago. Respect is earned my friend. And while Navy and I may not always agree on every issue, we do agree to disagree. If your here to share, learn, debate, argue, or whatever...it's probably a good idea to know what it is your talking about, especially when quoting someone. Putting words on here that you claim I said, that are completely false, is not the way to go about it! And while I'm normally the nicest guy on the playground, you don't know when to quit! So I will quit for the both of us, and refer you to the following....
You asked if I want to play nice, if so you will return "my" respect? If not, you will ignore me. Why don't we do that. I'm not gonna play nice with you anymore. So please just ignore me.

"Governments don't live together, people live together. With governments you don't always get a fair word or a fair fight. Well, I've come to give you either one. Or get either one from you." Josie Wales

Have you quit taking your meds again? You seem to have a argumentative character about you. My State requires CWP holders to inform the officer we are carrying. Unlike you, I don't have a problem with that. And unlike you, I don't think it is an affront to me rights. In my opinion, only some lower educated conspiracy theorist nuts would think informing is the "GOVT" trying to get one over on you. SHEESH! Give ME a break!!

DEAR READER: Yet again, for perhaps the tenth time in this thread alone, GOV5 ^^^^^ is giving bad information laced with his assumptions. It has only been about a week since the last time he did this on this exact subject. You may want to consider this whenever reading GOV5's advice in the future.

As I quoted at least twice in this thread, directly from our own laws, MY state (SC) requires ONLY that you present your permit to the officer ONLY if you are carrying, and ONLY after he identifies himself and asks for identification. The LAW does NOT require a permit holder to inform the officer he is carrying, what he is carrying, where he is carrying, etc. GOV5 adds all that stuff as assumptions. And while they may be good things to do, OUR state does NOT require any of them. This also does NOT include the case where you have a loaded or unloaded pistol in your glove compartment or console, whether locked or unlocked. ALL SC citizens who can legally own a pistol may carry in their car as described WITHOUT any permit whatsoever.

QUOTE: (K) A permit holder must have his permit identification card in his possession whenever he carries a concealable weapon. When carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 31 of Title 23, a permit holder must inform a law enforcement officer of the fact that he is a permit holder and present the permit identification card when an officer (1) identifies himself as a law enforcement officer and (2) requests identification or a driver’s license from a permit holder.

DEAR READER: Yet again, for perhaps the tenth time in this thread alone, GOV5 ^^^^^ is giving bad information laced with his assumptions. It has only been about a week since the last time he did this on this exact subject. You may want to consider this whenever reading GOV5's advice in the future.

As I quoted at least twice in this thread, directly from our own laws, MY state (SC) requires ONLY that you present your permit to the officer ONLY if you are carrying, and ONLY after he identifies himself and asks for identification. The LAW does NOT require a permit holder to inform the officer he is carrying, what he is carrying, where he is carrying, etc. GOV5 adds all that stuff as assumptions. And while they may be good things to do, OUR state does NOT require any of them. This also does NOT include the case where you have a loaded or unloaded pistol in your glove compartment or console, whether locked or unlocked. ALL SC citizens who can legally own a pistol may carry in their car as described WITHOUT any permit whatsoever.

QUOTE: (K) A permit holder must have his permit identification card in his possession whenever he carries a concealable weapon. When carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 31 of Title 23, a permit holder must inform a law enforcement officer of the fact that he is a permit holder and present the permit identification card when an officer (1) identifies himself as a law enforcement officer and (2) requests identification or a driver’s license from a permit holder.

"Governments don't live together, people live together. With governments you don't always get a fair word or a fair fight. Well, I've come to give you either one. Or get either one from you." Josie Wales

Well don't that just about explain it all?....Not only can't you understand what you read,.....we can't understand what you type? Maybe you should get hooked on phonics, instead of trying to educate all of us on your often misguided understanding of the written word? Thank you Islander for enlightening all of us to the disabilities that are obvious with every stroke of the keyboard, for which Gov5 is using to educate us lowly subjects. Your observations are spot-on, and appreciated

Yes Gov5 shoot yourself, You were here way before me! Oops! Typo...suit yourself is what I meant to say! lol

Anybody ready to change gears? I know I am! I think we've beaten this one enough all ready?

"Governments don't live together, people live together. With governments you don't always get a fair word or a fair fight. Well, I've come to give you either one. Or get either one from you." Josie Wales